question about the opening of ANH

The Silence and I · Post by **The Silence and I** » 2006-12-14 02:01pm

Entirely. I was making a case for there being no rational reason, an irrational reason is perfectly plausible.

EDIT: Fell off the page, this is in response to Darth Wong's post at the end of page 2.

PayBack · Post by **PayBack** » 2006-12-14 08:22pm

I thought it was probably because the crew of the Tantive IV were indignant at the Destroyer overstepping it's bounds and firing on a councillors ship.

Ok they were technically smuggling plans, but that wouldn't stop them being indignant at the attack. Shooting back was more making a statement than anything as well as venting anger, and would also make it a bigger "issue" of it, were the senate not dissolved shortly thereafter.

Cykeisme · Post by **Cykeisme** » 2006-12-15 11:38am

Considering the shields already hug the irregular contours of the bridge superstructure, sensor globes and the pointy tips of the main hull, I would actually assume that the shields on an ISD are skintight to the indendation of the main hangar bay.

Additionally, there inside of the hangar is likely lined by layers of armor similar in thickness to the outer hull, as has already been stated.

Big Orange · Post by **Big Orange** » 2006-12-15 01:54pm

•Boarding craft cannot be safely launched as long as the Tantive IV is armed--it does not need to fire a single shot before those craft are sent.

The ISD Devestator probably had an umbilical docking tube or something (although in Incredible Cross Sections, Stormtrooper boarding teams on a Imperial Star Destroyer Mk I use modified TIE transports as docking craft).

•Pulling the Tantive IV into the hanger is not safe as long as it is armed--it needn't fire a single shot to still be dangerous.

Well the ISD's docking areas are an obvious weak point so they must've fortified them with interior armour, inner shielding and defence turrets.

Big Orange · Post by **Big Orange** » 2006-12-15 02:01pm

PayBack wrote: Ok they were technically smuggling plans, but that wouldn't stop them being indignant at the attack. Shooting back was more making a statement than anything as well as venting anger, and would also make it a bigger "issue" of it, were the senate not dissolved shortly thereafter.

I doubt a legitimate political assembly would back one of their representatives, if she was caught illegally smuggling vital state secrets and her crew fought to the death (with herself resisting arrest with lethal force). If the Senate had not been disbanded or liquidated, I don't think they would protest about the detainment of a Senator who was revealed to be an enemy of the state.